AMD K6 MMX slower than Intel Pentium MMX? (FPU)
Aaron Tan
Ok I am a bit confused, need some experts to help me out.
If I am not mistaken AMD K6 is a MMX so does the new Intel Pentium
MMX. MMX should improve 3D graphics,sound.video & MPEG (basically all those
multimedia stuff),that means AMD should be as good or even better than
Pentium interms of 3D graphics,MPEG & other multimedia stuff.Am I right?
Recently I read my local newspaper that says AMD K6 MMX is still slow in
FPU (flowting point unit or something like that) compare to Intel's Pentium
MMX but I thought FPU is for 3D graphics? & AMD K6's `MMX' should solve all
the problem?
Can someone please explain to me??
P.S: I heard that because AMD K6 is using RISC & it may cost some problem?
Am I right? Please correct me if there is any mistake that I make.
freekb
Peter Szymonik (xo...@ct2.nai.net) wrote:
: The K6 does hav a slower FPU than the newer Pentium MMX chips, but
: this really only comes into play if you're doing high-end CAD/CAM or
: graphics work, and it only affects how fast the computer can generate
: a complex screen display, not how fast the screen is displayed (which
: remains up to the graphics accelerator.)
Screen complexity 's got nothing to do with FPU's. If your software uses
floating point calculations, it's most likely that the CPU's FPU will be
used. If so, a faster FPU is a good thing to have.
On the other hand if your software doesn't do floating point
calculation, an FPU has about as much influcence on system speed as the
brand of coke you're drinking.
Freek.
-=Grand Cursor of the Order of the Command Line.
http://igweb.vub.ac.be/knights
Peter Szymonik
The new AMD K6 is an MMX enabled processor, for what that's worth.
According to most programmers, MMX is more hype than anything. If you
already have a serious 2D/3D graphics accelerator in your machine, it
will run circles around what MMX offers.
The K6 does hav a slower FPU than the newer Pentium MMX chips, but
this really only comes into play if you're doing high-end CAD/CAM or
graphics work, and it only affects how fast the computer can generate
a complex screen display, not how fast the screen is displayed (which
remains up to the graphics accelerator.)
AMD's offering has an edge over current Intel chips in that it fits in
existing Socket 7 processor slots. So you could simply pop out and
old Intel chip and pop in a new K6 running at 233Mhz at a fraction of
the cost of putting in a Pentium MMX OverDrive processor (depending on
your motherboard.)
AMD's processor is built on technology they acquired from NexGen when
they bought them out. NexGen was using RISC type technologies in
their chip designs, some of which carried over into the K6 - but this
isn't an issue in terms of compatibility.
The new Pentium Pro/Pentium II MMX (Klamath) processors will require a
different type of motherboard design (i.e. no direct upgrade path for
existing Pentium systems.)
Peter T. Szymonik
xo...@msn.com
...change is constant...
Nic
freekb wrote:
>
> Peter Szymonik (xo...@ct2.nai.net) wrote:
> : The K6 does hav a slower FPU than the newer Pentium MMX chips, but
> : this really only comes into play if you're doing high-end CAD/CAM or
> : graphics work, and it only affects how fast the computer can generate
> : a complex screen display, not how fast the screen is displayed (which
> : remains up to the graphics accelerator.)
>
> floating point calculations, it's most likely that the CPU's FPU will be
> used. If so, a faster FPU is a good thing to have.
> On the other hand if your software doesn't do floating point
> calculation, an FPU has about as much influcence on system speed as the
> brand of coke you're drinking.
>
For those of you that are interested you can read all about The K6 Vs.
Klamath
at Tom's Hardware Page at http://sysdoc.pair.com/
I know if I was buying hardware right now I would be getting a K6 233
and
overclocking it on a 83 Mhz bus. Mmm, one lives in hope ;)
Nic
Edwin Wijers
On 23 Apr 1997, Aaron Tan wrote:
> Ok I am a bit confused, need some experts to help me out.
>
> If I am not mistaken AMD K6 is a MMX so does the new Intel Pentium
> MMX. MMX should improve 3D graphics,sound.video & MPEG (basically all those
> multimedia stuff),that means AMD should be as good or even better than
> Pentium interms of 3D graphics,MPEG & other multimedia stuff.Am I right?
Yes, just check out Harry's Hardware page (sysdoc.pair.com, if I am
correct) for a full review of the AMD. In it Harry writes that the AMD is
the FASTEST processor available at this time and will be able to beat
Intels 'new' Pentium II (Klamath) hands down!!!
> Recently I read my local newspaper that says AMD K6 MMX is still slow in
> FPU (flowting point unit or something like that) compare to Intel's Pentium
> MMX but I thought FPU is for 3D graphics? & AMD K6's `MMX' should solve all
> the problem?
>
The AMD's FPU is somewhat slower than the Intels, BUT for the difference
in price between AMD and Intel you can easily buy yourself a good 3DFX
card with your AMD K6, because MMX only improves the 2D graphics. I would
personally want an AMD K6 with 3D card than an Intel without. The 3D card
really makes a difference during games!
> Can someone please explain to me??
>
> P.S: I heard that because AMD K6 is using RISC & it may cost some problem?
> Am I right? Please correct me if there is any mistake that I make.
>
>
Again, check out Harry's Hardware page.
Greetz, Edwin
Stan Cox
Edwin Wijers wrote:
>
> Again, check out Harry's Hardware page.
>
> Greetz, Edwin
I agree with all Edwin says, except who's Harry. Its Tom's hardware
page & one of the best places on the net. Slow link sometimes though
so be patient its worth it.
STaN..
Light bike Fat bastard...
John Dent
>On 23 Apr 1997, Aaron Tan wrote:
>
>> Ok I am a bit confused, need some experts to help me out.
>>
>> If I am not mistaken AMD K6 is a MMX so does the new Intel Pentium
>> MMX. MMX should improve 3D graphics,sound.video & MPEG (basically all those
>> multimedia stuff),that means AMD should be as good or even better than
>> Pentium interms of 3D graphics,MPEG & other multimedia stuff.Am I right?
>
>Yes, just check out Harry's Hardware page (sysdoc.pair.com, if I am
>correct) for a full review of the AMD. In it Harry writes that the AMD is
>the FASTEST processor available at this time and will be able to beat
>Intels 'new' Pentium II (Klamath) hands down!!!
That would be Tom's Hardware page at www.sysdoc.pair.com. The K6 by
AMD is not going to be the 'fastest' processor overall but does very
well in some categories. Check out the benchmarks on the above URL
for more info. Also, the K6 is MMX enabled but that will only
accelerate programs that are written to take advantage of the new
instructions.
>> Recently I read my local newspaper that says AMD K6 MMX is still slow in
>> FPU (flowting point unit or something like that) compare to Intel's Pentium
>> MMX but I thought FPU is for 3D graphics? & AMD K6's `MMX' should solve all
>> the problem?
Most games don't use FPU but use integers instead as I understand it
with the exception of Quake.
>The AMD's FPU is somewhat slower than the Intels, BUT for the difference
>in price between AMD and Intel you can easily buy yourself a good 3DFX
>card with your AMD K6, because MMX only improves the 2D graphics. I would
>personally want an AMD K6 with 3D card than an Intel without. The 3D card
>really makes a difference during games!
>
>> Can someone please explain to me??
>>
>> P.S: I heard that because AMD K6 is using RISC & it may cost some problem?
>> Am I right? Please correct me if there is any mistake that I make.
The K6 is a CISC processor. Again, I would suggest you check out
Tom's page.
Ben
Edwin Wijers wrote:
> The AMD's FPU is somewhat slower than the Intels, BUT for the difference
> in price between AMD and Intel you can easily buy yourself a good 3DFX
> card with your AMD K6, because MMX only improves the 2D graphics. I would
> personally want an AMD K6 with 3D card than an Intel without. The 3D card
> really makes a difference during games!
From what I understand, that is not entirely accurate. I admit that my
knowledge of the inner workings of the MMX instruction set is hardly
comprehensive, but I have read several articles by software developers
who are using the MMX instructions to improve 3d games. While it is true
that MMX does not grant any real increase in speed (aside from the
advantage of having a larger L1 cache, which is not really a benefit
derived from MMX per se), it does allow programmers to add an increased
level of detail without the performance hit that such detail would add
to a non-MMX system. For instance, the Unreal developers say that MMX
enables them to use a seperate 256-color palette for every *object* in
the game (rather than a single 256-color palette for everything on
screen) without any real hit in performance.
If anyone has more specific knowledge of the specifics of MMX, speak up.
This is not to say that I do not think AMD's K6 is not a great chip-
from what I hear, it is. I think this is a good thing, even for people
who want to buy Intel processors. Competition increases quality and
lowers prices for everyone, as is evidenced by Intel's recent cut in
prices. The Micron system I am looking at getting just dropped in price
by about $200.
The K6 is beneficial even to people who don't have it... ;)
Regards,
Benjamin E. Sones
feld...@sprynet.com